Carefulness is in need - 回複：A discussion - 回複：急求教皮匠和8老師

來源: pjiang 於 2012-01-26 19:16:06 [檔案] [博客] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀：次 (4082 bytes)

回答: 回複：A discussion - 回複：急求教皮匠和8老師由 863211 於 2012-01-26 18:00:52

Following is an example from above referring memo.

Example 4: An alien is admitted as a nonimmigrant until January 10, 2011. On March 15, 2009, DHS places the alien in removal proceedings, claiming that the alien had violated a condition of admission.

Because the alien was in "violation of status" (eg "violated a condition of admission", like H-1B does not work for his sponsor employer), it causes him out of staus, and brings him "in removal proceedings". The above alien is not "legal to stay in US" as you said.

-I think "violated a condition of admission" means "entered US without inspection,

- If you paid attention to the 1st statement of the example, you would not have arrived at the point. I have read your every post in this thread, and it gives me an impression that you might not be very clear on the concepts of "lawful presence", "unlawful presence", " authorized status" and "authorized stay". Also you might not have a good understanding on "violation of nonimmigrant status". Because of that, it looks to me that the distinction of " unlawful presence" and "violation of nonimmigrant status" might not be that clear to you. The former only occurs at the expiration of I-94 with aspect to bar, while the latter may happen within/beyond I-94 validity thus may or may not be related to bar (eg unlawful presence) but it is a very important factor for EOS/COS.

i.e. illegally entered US" and this should be different from "violation of status" as you descibed here. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand 245(k).

Admission = permission to enter US.

See this CBP website:

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/legally_admitted_to_the_u_s.xml